[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
H R Shivakumar vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
CRL.A No. 513 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))
BETWEEN:
H. R. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O H. T. RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O. RAGHAVENDRA SAW MILL ROAD
GAYATHRI LAYOUT, CHANNARAYAPATNA
HASSAN-573 116
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. S. SHYAM SUNDAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI REVANTH P. N. AND MS. DEEPA J., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
the STATION HOUSE OFFICER
Digitally MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION
signed by REPRESENTED BY
SUMA B N The STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: BENGALURU-01
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SMT. ADILAKSHMI
W/O. P. L. GOPI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.72, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS
SONNENAHALLI, VIVEK NAGARA
BENGALURU-560 047
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. LAKSHMAN, H.C.G.P. FOR R-1;
SRI RAMESHA H. N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
CRL.A No. 513 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN C.MISC NO.317/2026 ON
05.03.2026 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO
RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
SPL.CC NO.88/2026 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR
OFFENCES P/U/S. 118(2), 127(2), 258, 120(1) R/W 3(5) OF
BNS AND SECTION 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) ACT
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the accused No.10-appellant being aggrieved
by the order dated 05.03.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. No.317/2026 by
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Trial Court'). By which his application filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) seeking grant of
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.999/2025,
registered before Madanayakanahalli Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 118(2), 127(2), 258, 120(1) R/w Section
3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been rejected.
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
2. That a complaint dated 27.11.2025 came to be filed by the
respondent No.2-defacto complainant before the Madanayakanahalli
Police Station alleging that that on 12.11.2025 at about 1.30 a.m.,
when her son Darshan was sitting outside the house, two persons in
their police uniform and another in color dress from Vivekanagara
Police Station were assaulting him and on enquiry she was told that
said Darshan had threatened some people and had even shown
machete to the police officials. That thereafter the said persons had
taken him on bike. That on 13.11.2025 at about 1:30 p.m., she
went to the police station and she was sent away as there was no
Station House Officer. That on 14.11.2025, she again went to the
Police Station at 6.30 p.m., and met the Inspector who refused to let
Darshan go. The respondent No.2-defacto complainant had
requested the Inspector, that she would have Darshan admitted to a
Rehabilitation Centre, which was also not considered. That on
15.11.2025 about 3.00 p.m., she received a call from one Pavan
stating that the Inspector has agreed to send Darshan to the
rehabilitation centre and asked her to arrange money for the same.
When she went to the Police station, she was not allowed to meet
Darshan, who was inside the lock up. That the said Darshan had
requested the respondent No.2-defacto complainant to take him
home. That at about 8.30 p.m., said Darshan was taken to Unit
Foundation Rehabilitation Centre, Adakamaranahalli, Bengaluru North
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
Taluk. That on 26.11.2025, the owner of the said rehabilitation
centre had called her and told that her son Darshan had passed
away, complaining of breathing. When she enquired with the
Inspector, she was not given proper reply. She was sent to
Government Hospital, Nelamangla, where she found her son dead
with injury marks all over his body. She was asked to go to
Madanayakanahalli Police Station, where a case under UDR
No.160/2025 was registered. It is further alleged that on
12.11.2025, Vivekanagara Police had taken her son Darshan to the
police station without any reason and had physically subjected him to
torture and to cover up their misdeeds had sent him to the said
rehabilitation centre, where due to their negligence, said Darshan
died. That illegal detention and physical torture by the Vivekanagara
Police Inspector and other personnel and persons at rehabilitation
centre, were responsible for his death. Hence, sought for action.
3. Thus based on the above complaint, a case in Crime
No.999/2025 came to the registered for the offences noted
hereinabove. In which, appellant herein has been arraigned as
accused No.10.
4. Investigation of the matter has been conducted by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (H and B), CID, who has submitted
his report, wherein it is stated that appellant herein was the Station
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
House Officer of Vivekanagara Police Station at the relevant time.
That at about 01.00 a.m., of 13.11.2025, her son Darshan was
brought to the police station who was in inebriated condition. That
the appellant herein without registering any case against said
Darshan and without even producing him before the concerned
Magistrate had detained him upto 08.30 p.m. of 15.11.2025. That
the said Darshan was subjected to assault by accused No.11 with
lathi during initial pickup and in the police station. Thereafter, said
Darshan was sent to rehabilitation center. That said Darshan had
apparently tried to break the gate of the rehabilitation center and
escape with other patients, who are CW.5 to CW.9. That out of anger
and on instruction of accused No.1-who is the owner of said
rehabilitation center, manager and staff of the said rehabilitation
center, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 6 and other patients
of the rehabilitation center, who are arrested as accused No.7 to 9,
stripped said Darshan and CW.5 to CW.9 naked and assaulted them
multiple times by hands, feet, fibre lathis, clubs, belts, steel rods and
plastic pipe between 23.11.2025 and 26.11.2025 and they were not
provided any timely medical treatment. That due to severity of the
injuries, said Darshan is stated to have died on 26.11.2025 at 10.30
a.m. Accused No.2 is stated to have instructed accused No.3 to
destroy Darshan's clothes and bedding with an intention of screening
the evidence.
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
5. Sri. M.S. Shyam Sundar, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the Sri. Revanth P. N and Ms. Deepa .J, learned counsel for
accused No.10-appellant herein taking this Court through the records
submits;
(a) that there are no serious allegations of any overtact
attributed to the accused No.10-appellant herein. That at the most he
could have been alleged of dereliction of duty in not registering any
case against deceased Darshan or for not producing him before the
jurisdictional Magistrate. That there was no occasion for that either
inasmuch as Darshan was never brought to the police station with
any accusation. Circumstances were such that the accused No.10-
appellant herein thought it appropriate to keep him in the Station till
the situation gets normal and it was at the request of respondent
No.2-defacto complainant who is the Mother of the deceased, he was
sent to rehabilitation center as he was chronically addicted to alcohol.
(b) That charge sheet having been filed all the documentary
evidence including the CCTV footage from the CCTV cameras
maintained within the Station house, where accused No.10-appellant
was in charge of having seized and made part of the charge sheet,
that there is no whisper or allegation against the accused No.10-
appellant of he subjecting deceased Darshan to any kind of physical
assault or causing any injury.
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
(c) that his custodial interrogation is not envisaged in the facts
situation of the case. However, accused No.10-appellant is seriously
apprehensive of his imminent arrest in the light of the sections
charged against him. Therefore, he submits that he deserves
consideration of grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by
the respondent-Police in the said crime.
(d) that accused No.10-appellant herein has been in service for
over 20 years and currently in the position of Police Inspector and he
is a law abiding citizen and he would abide by any conditions that
may be imposed by this Court in cooperating with any further
investigation required by the respondent-police.
6. Learned HCGP opposing the application for anticipatory bail
submits that the accused No.10-appellant having been in the position
of the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station may
utilise his power and influence to destroy the evidence causing
impediment and hindrance in progress of investigation and influence
the witnesses. Therefore, he submits that it is not safe to grant
anticipatory bail to the accused No.10-appellant.
7. Learned counsel Sri. Ramesha H.N, appearing for the
respondent No.2-defacto complainant supplements the submission
made by learned HCGP.
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
8. Heard and perused the records.
9. The investigation in the matter is admittedly conducted by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who in his report has not
indicated any overtact having been committed by accused No.10-
appellant in this matter. The relevant portion of the said report
pertaining to the role of accused No.10-appellant herein is as under:
'' ಎ10- ೆ .ಆ . ವಕು ಾ , ೕ ಇ ೆಕ , ೇಕನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ನಗರ..
ನಗರ ಸ%ಂತ 'ಾಸ: ೆ .ಆ . ವಕು ಾ ( ೆ .
ೆ .).*ಾಮಕೃಷ./ೌಡ, *ಾಘ ೇಂದ4 5ಾ6ೕ7 ರ5ೆ8, /ಾಯ:4 ಬ<ಾವ ೆ
ಚನ>*ಾಯಪಟ ಣ ಾಸನ BCೆD-573116.
ಆ*ೋF-10 ರವರು ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ನಗರದ ೕ ಕ6ೕಷನ ಾGF8ಯ D ಬರುವ
ೇಕನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ, ಇ ೆಕ CVzÀÄÝ, F ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ªÀÄÈvÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.11.2025
gÀAzÀÄ *ಾ:4 ಜIೕJೊ <ೆ ವK ಾL/ೆ ಮಚುM NೋKO ೆದKOದುP ಇದನು> ಪ4 >Oದ ಆ
Qನ *ಾ:4 (ೕR ಕತSವGದ DದP ೕ OಬTಂQಗ'ಾದ ಆ*ೋF-12 ಮತು8 13
ರವKಗೂ ಸಹ ಮಚುM NೋKO ೆದKOದುP, ಈ Wಾರವನು> :XದುYೊಂಡ ಆ*ೋF-11
ರವರು ಆ*ೋF 12 ಮತು8 13 gÀವರ ZೊNೆ' Q[ಾಂಕ: 13.11.2025 ರಂದು
ಮುಂZಾ[ೆ 01.15 ಗಂJೆ/ೆ ಮೃತ ದಶSನನನು> ಆತನ ಮ[ೆಯ ಬX ವಶYೆ] ಪ<ೆದು, Q%-
ಚಕ4 ಾಹನದ D ೇಕನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ/ೆ ಕ*ೆದುYೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಈ Wಾರವನು>
ಾ ಾ^YಾK_ಾ`ದP ಆ*ೋF-10 ರವK/ೆ aೕ ಮುbಾಂತರ :XOದುP, ಆ*ೋF-10
ರವರ ಸೂಚ[ೆಯಂNೆ ಮೃತ ದಶS ನನು> ೕ ಾ ೆಯ Cಾಕc ನ Dಡಲು
ಸೂeOದುP, ದಶS fೕCೆ _ಾವghೇ Yೇಸು hಾಖCಾಗQದPರೂ, ಆತನ fೕCೆ
[ಾG_ಾಲಯQಂದ _ಾವghೇ ದಸ8`K ಾ*ೆಂR ೊರjಸQದPರೂ ಆತನನು> Q[ಾಂಕ:
13.11.2025 ರಂದು ಮುಂZಾ[ೆ 01.30 Kಂದ Q[ಾಂಕ: 15.11.2025 ರ *ಾ:4
8.20 ರವ*ೆ/ೆ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ Cಾಕcನ D ಅಕ4ಮ ಾ` ಬಂಧನ ಾjರುವgದು ಮತು8
5ಾವSಜmಕ [ೌಕರ[ಾ` ಅಪ*ಾಧ ಕೃತGವನು> ತ<ೆಗಟು ವgದು ಆತನ Yಾನೂನು ಬದP
ಕತSವG ಾ`ದPರೂ ಸಹ ದಶS ಎಂಬ ವGn8ಯನು> ಅಕ4ಮ ಾ` ಕೂj ಾn ಅಪ*ಾ^ಕ
ಕೃತG ಎಸ`ರುವgದು ಈವ*ೆ`ನ ನ<ೆOದ ಶmbಾ Yಾಲದ Dನ 5ಾohಾರರ ೇXYೆಗXಂದ,
ೕ ಾ ೆಯ O.O.) ಎ ಆ ಗಳ ದೃpಾGವXಗXಂದ ೈrಾmಕ ಾ`
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
ದೃಢಪ) ರುವ Yಾರಣ ಆ*ೋF-10 ರವರ ರುದt ಕಲಂ: 127(2) *ೆ/ 3(5)
(.ಎ .ಎ -2023 KೕNಾG hೋuಾ*ೋಪ ೆ ಇರುತ8hೆ.''
10. Thus, as seen above except the illegal confinement of
deceased Darshan between 01.30 a.m. of 13.11.2025 and 08.30
p.m. of 15.11.2025, allegations primarily have been attributed to the
owner, Manager and inmates of the said Rehabilitation Center who
have been arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 9.
11. The charge sheet which is already filed would indicate that
the CCTV footage of the Vivekanagara Police Station, where the
Darshan was illegally confined, has already been recovered under
P.F.No.1/2025 and he is stated to have been sent to FSL for further
verification.
12. It is not the case of the prosecution that investigation is
still underway. On the other hand investigation has been conducted
by CID headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police and a detailed
charge sheet has already been filed. The role of the accused No.10-
appellant herein, as already noted has also been specifically
mentioned.
13. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the accused No.10-appellant, at this juncture there appears to be
no requirement of any custodial interrogation of the accused No.10-
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
appellant. His apprehension of arrest in the matter concerned cannot
be ruled out.
14. Considering his background and the nature of allegations
made against him, this Court is of the considered view that the
accused No.10-appellant herein is entitled to be enlarged on bail, in
the event of his arrest in the aforesaid crime No.999/2025, subject to
conditions. Accordingly the following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No.513/2026 is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 05.03.2026 passed in Crl.
Misc. No.317/2026 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge/Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside.
(iii) The accused No.10-appellant herein is directed to be
enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.999/2025 of
Madanayakanahalli Police Station registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 118(2), 127(2), 258, 120(1) R/w Section
3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following
conditions:
a) The accused No.10-appellant shall execute personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only)
with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of
the jurisdictional Court;
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17538
HC-KAR
b) The accused No.10-appellant shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court and obtain regular bail within ten days
from today;
c) The accused No.10-appellant shall appear before the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (H and B), CID, Carlton
House, Palace Road, Bengaluru between 10:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., everyday for next fifteen days and if required
thereafter till completion of enquiry and extend full co-
operation for investigation/enquiry as the case may be;
d) The accused No.10-appellant shall not directly or
indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution
witnesses;
e) The accused No.10-appellant shall not involve in similar
offences in future;
f) The accused No.10-appellant shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the
said Court until the case registered against him is
disposed off.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
